On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Zhu, Lejun <lejun.zhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > retval = gpiochip_add(&cg->chip); > if (retval) { > dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "add gpio chip error: %d\n", retval); > return ret; > } > > gpiochip_irqchip_add(&cg->chip, &crystalcove_irqchip, 0, > handle_simple_irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE); > > retval = request_threaded_irq(irq, NULL, crystalcove_gpio_irq_handler, > IRQF_ONESHOT, KBUILD_MODNAME, cg); You should request the interrupt before you add the irqchip I think. But it shouldn't really matter, mainly to avoid tearing down the irqchip if getting the irq should fail. > But this code will trigger a crash in gpiolib-acpi. Currently at the end > of gpiochip_add(), it calls: > > gpiochip_add() -> acpi_gpiochip_add() -> acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts() > > acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts() needs ->to_irq to work. Without having > called gpiochip_irqchip_add() already, this will be NULL: > > if (!chip->to_irq) > return; <-- It will return here. > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&acpi_gpio->events); > > In the tear down path, acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts() will find to_irq is > no longer NULL, then it will walk an uninitialized list. > > So, should this be fixed in gpiolib-acpi? Maybe, maybe in the drivers. I think Mika has a proposed solution... Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html